Punditry

The Catholic Church is not the only place that has suffered under mushy emotional liturgical music with theologically dumbed down lyrics but this effect is pervasive.

Star Trek and all of the other spinoffs could be counted on for music that fit the theme of exploration of space. Ever since 2001: A space odyssey we could expect grand symphonic music to represent this genre. But after recently hearing the theme song for Enterprise I could have sworn it was written my Marty Haugen and was right out of a modern hymn book by OCP or GIA. It’s saccharine sound could have been performed by Survivor.

This is not a parody and is the actual lyrics for Enterprise.

“Faith of the Heart” written by Diane Warren and performed by Russell Watson.

It’s been a long road getting from there to here
It’s been a long time, but my time is finally near
and I can feel the change in the wind right now
Nothing’s in my way
and they’re not gonna hold me down no more
No they’re not gonna hold me down
Cause I’ve got faith of the heart I’m going where my heart will take me
I’ve got faith to believe I can do anything
I’ve got strength of the soul and no one’s gonna bend or break me
I can reach any star, I’ve got faith, I’ve got I’ve got I’ve got faith… faith of the heart

It’s been a long night trying to find my way
Been through the darkness, now I’ve finally had my day
and I will see my dream come alive at last I will touch the sky
And they’re not gonna hold me down no more no they’re not gonna change my mind

Cause I’ve got faith of the heart I’m going where my heart will take me
I’ve got faith to believe I can do anything
I’ve got strength of the soul and no one’s gonna bend or break me
I can reach any star, I’ve got faith, I’ve got I’ve got I’ve got faith… faith of the heart

I’m going where the winds so cold, to see the darkest days
But now the winds are free…only winds have changed
I’ve been to the fire and I’ve been to the rain
But I’ll be fine cause I’ve got faith… faith of the heart

Cause I’ve got faith of the heart I’m going where my heart will take me
I’ve got faith to believe I can do anything
I’ve got strength of the soul and no one’s gonna bend or break me
I can reach any star, I’ve got , I’ve got I’ve got I’ve got faith….faith of the heart
faith of the heart I’m going where my heart will take me
I’ve got faith to believe and no one’s gonna bend or break
I can reach any star, cause I’ve got faith, cause I’ve got faith, faith of the heart

Tomorrow the letter “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” will be released by the Vatican and the Church of England has just released the 138-page document, Being Human.

The Church of England sought to shed its puritanical image on sexual issues yesterday in a report that could pave the way for further liberalisation.

Its Doctrine Commission admits that the Church has “acquired a reputation for being negative about sex”. It should celebrate it as “a wonderful gift from God”.

Pejorative language, such as the phrase “living in sin”, is absent from the report, which instead encourages “covenanted relationships”.

The Rt Rev Stephen Sykes, the commission’s chairman, says that any man and woman who make a lifelong commitment to each other are in such a relationship, whether or not they are married.

However, the Church will still urge such couples to marry, although it increasingly recognises that the institution is far from perfect.

The report says that the Church remains divided on whether homosexual couples can be in such relationships.

Even so, liberals will seize on the 138-page document, Being Human, which has been endorsed by the House of Bishops, to reinforce their arguments that the Church needs to relax its strictures.
[Full Story]

This is what happens when you don’t have the living authority of the Church to protect the truth. The Protestant ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura have broken down to Sola Cultura. While the concept of Sola Scriptura is deeply flawed it is preferable to just looking at the culture around you and priding yourself on being a modern and taking your cues from that. I am sure that the Greek and Roman cultures in decline felt exactly the same way.

It is no surprise that the Church of England which started because of a annulment dispute and subsequent remarriage of the king could degenerate down to this concept of marriage and sex. You would think that they were using a totally different Bible by the doctrines that have resulted. You would believe that by their interpretation of scripture that Jesus’ first public miracle was the cohabitation at Cana. That King Herod Antipas was a hero and that John the Baptist was a judgemental intolerant fool because he didn’t approve of Herod’s “covenanted relationship.” That Jesus only urged people to marry and didn’t have anything to say about sex outside of marriage.

The report said that, given the changes in society’s attitude towards sex and relationships, “a merely nostalgic or conservative reaction is out of the question”. The report also argues that people need ever greater wisdom to deal with modern pressures such as power and money.

How about unchanging moral truth? Oops sorry if I have offended anyone by that statement.

Social change cannot be shifted into reverse by fiat, even by papal fiat.

Moral truth cannot be shifted into reverse by fiat, even by Boston Globe fiat.

The march toward equal rights for gay and lesbian couples will not stop for religious leaders of any denomination who exercise narrow selectivity in their embrace of social justice.

In New Hampshire, a gay priest has been elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church, a reflection of greater societal acceptance of homosexuality even as the church debates his confirmation. In Boston, an intolerant friar today will be elevated to archbishop, a commentary on the homophobia that still pervades the Roman Catholic Church.
[Full Story]

The Intolerant Friar sounds like a great mystery book title to me. Just to bad that this writer does not tolerate the new Bishop of Boston. This article is a commentary on the Romeaphobia that still pervades the Boston Globe. Since they always refer to us as the “Roman” Catholic Church I think the term I just coined “Romeaphobia” is apt.

Isaac Asimov’s in his Robot novels developed laws that governed the possible actions of the Robots with positronic brains.

The Three Laws of Robotics are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In his novels apparent contradictory actions of robots occurred even though they were following the three laws. I have noticed though that there is a similar set of laws governing Democrats running for national office. These laws appear to perfectly describe the behavior of these candidates and can be used in all cases to determine their actions in relation to abortion.

The Three Laws of Robotic Democrats

1. A Democrat may not injure a woman’s right to abortion, or, through inaction, allow a woman’s right to abortion to be overturned.

2. A Democrat must obey the orders given it by focus groups except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A Democrat must protect its own political existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov used the three laws in his stories and the mystery would be how a Robot might have committed a murder even though bound by the three laws. The Three Laws of Robotic Democrats seem to be tighter and with better enforcement of possible contradictions. If you are a Pro-Life Democrat then you are barred from support in seeking national office and will not be allowed to speak at a convention, even if the topic is not about abortion. The Democrats running for President can probably only agree on two things. 1) That they should be President, and 2) Abortion no matter what.

In some ways you can admire their tight control of the pro-death party line and I wish that the Republican had such control over their members in regard to being pro-life. Pro abortion Republicans are not only allowed to speak at the conventions but are in prominent positions in the President’s cabinet.

From “A Tour of the Summa” by Msgr. Paul J. Glenn:

1. Liberality is a virtue, for it puts to good use the things that might be used, for evil purposes–such, for instance, as more or other material things.

2. And, indeed, liberality deals, first and foremost, with money. A liberal man is an open-handed man, who is ready to “liberate” money from his own possession, and thus shows that he is is not inordinately attached to it.

This is a concept of liberalism that I would never have extrapolated for what passes as modern day liberalism. If what I have read about the meager amount of charity given by liberal lawmakers according to their tax returns is true and that the so-called “Bush Country” out gives to charity then those Democratic enclaves of big cities then I would write the definition for liberalism as expressed now as follows:

A liberal man is a closed-handed man, who is ready to “liberate” money from others possession, and thus shows that he is inordinately attached to his own money and inordinately attached to their money.

Now of course this is a generalization and doesn’t apply to each individual who identifies themselves as liberals, but I believe it does encapsulate the main trend of today’s liberalism. Maybe some of the factors for this are as follows. Many democrats view people as groups vice individuals. You are seen and sorted based on race, income, age, sexual preference, et cetera. These groups are played off against each other and promises are made that the government can correct any perceived wrongs between these groups. If there is a problem then the solution is always with the government. This view removes all problems from the realm of the individual into the realm of government. This is why we have lost personal accountability, since no person is really responsible for their actions but instead it is attributed that there wasn’t a big government program to help them or prevent the problem in the first place.

Since the government is responsible and not the individual you never have to reform yourself. If you see a problem you don’t have to personally try to help another individual, but instead you can bemoan the fact that there isn’t a government program to help this person. Why open your wallet when it is the group that is responsible and not yourself? If only we had the right laws and programs all injustices would disappear. If people are not saving enough for retirement, institute social security. Your neighborhood schools are failing to teach your children, simple add another cabinet position to the federal government. People can’t really live on Social Security and schools are still failing, oh well it’s not my problem; I have bestowed all responsibilities to the government.

G.K. Chesterton when asked to write an essay on what was wrong with the world replied “I am. Yours truly, G.K. Chesterton.” This is the antithesis of modern thinking. The concept of sin has passed away and is replaced by genetics or the actions of others. How can you repent when it is not really your fault? This attitude is pernicious and has done much damage to both the individual and society. Now I would’t want us to go the other direction into radical individualism, yet we need to reorder ourselves and then society on the proper balance of each unique individual and their roles together as first person, family, community, and then nation.

…Today — the official feast day of Mary Magdalene — is a good time to restore her honor.

Lest anyone see this as feminist-inspired rhetoric, the Vatican stated in 1969 that Mary Magdalene (sometimes referenced as Mary of Magdala and Mary Magdala) was not a harlot.

But, poor woman, the stories are still going around. Probably because it is a good story.

Mary Magdalene, it is usually told, was among the women who used their tears to wash Jesus’ feet. (These women are unnamed in Scriptures).

Mary Magdalene was at the Crucifixion. She was among the group of women who discovered the empty tomb after Jesus rose from the dead. She first saw the risen Christ.

Biblical scholars, however, say Mary Magdalene might not have even lived. Or, they say, her image is a compilation of Marys — including Mary of Bethany (Lazarus’ and Martha’s sister).

“We know virtually nothing about this woman,” notes Jean Porter, a professor of theology at Notre Dame University. “The figure of Mary Magdalene is most probably a consolidation of at least two, possible three, women mentioned in Scriptures.”
[Full Story]

I just love these well rounded and researched articles, especially where they quote unnamed Biblical scholars as if they were some homogeneous group who all agree with each other. You keep hearing quotes from these scholars but they always remain anonymous. Maybe these Biblical scholars have never lived and were only a compilation of liberal Biblical scholars imagined by the writer. Whenever you see something on A&E or Bravo that is somehow Biblically related they almost always trot out the same one or two scholars. And coincidentally they are always “Biblical scholars” who don’t believe in the resurrection or anything else from the Bible.

Now what I would like to see is a tag team match between those scholars who say that Mary Madalene didn’t really exist with those who say that she married Jesus. I would pay to see the Jesus Seminar Smackdown on Pay-Per-View. Or better yet a grudge match between Attila the Scott Hahn against Charles “Peter is not the Rock” Curran.

Dairy and investment magnate Jim Oberweis launched his campaign for U.S. Senate on Thursday, declaring abortion should be illegal and pledging to consider a constitutional ban on the procedure even in cases of rape and incest.

Just 21 months later, Oberweis insists it’s not a flip-flop.

“I think it’s a clarification,” Oberweis said. “I don’t think I explained my position very well two years ago.”

Here is his previous statement:

“I’ve been a lifelong Catholic–still am,” Oberweis told Dahl. “Obviously, I have concerns about that particular issue. However, I think that right now we’re getting a very, very strong symbol in the Taliban of what can happen if we try to impose our religious beliefs on others. So I really think that that issue is a choice that government should stay out of, and let people make that the way they see fit.”

Keeping from not imposing beliefs on others does not fit within the definition of a representative politician. Unless every vote comes to a 100% agreement, you are imposing beliefs on others especially with regards to legislation that addresses morals in some way.

…Oberweis made similar remarks to the Chicago Sun-Times and a Springfield paper. Throughout the campaign, he portrayed himself as personally ”pro-life” but supportive of others’ rights to the procedure.

“What I was talking about two years ago was the discomfort that I have in enforcing my religious beliefs on others,” he said.

Oberweis said it should be illegal for women to have abortions unless their lives were in danger. He said he would consider supporting a constitutional ban.

“There are circumstances under which America as a country can pull together and agree on certain issues,” he said. “If the right opportunity were there, phrased in the right way, I could support a constitutional amendment.”

Later, he told a reporter he would only support the amendment if the nation reached consensus that life begins at conception.
[Full Story]

First we had “personally opposed” and then we come to consensus. Phrases from the verbal toolkit of the modern Catholic politician. There are also some other linguistic gymnastics in this article; a flip-flop becomes a clarification. When Jesus asked the Apostles “Who do you say that I am?”, only Peter answered correctly. The consensus was that he was Elijah or one of the prophets. Seeking consensus is for those who do not have a clear moral vision and/or leadership abilities.

Maureen McHugh of A Religion of Sanity made an excellent point the other day when she compared the Tower of Babel and language today.

“Although we appear to share the same language, we are attaching increasing divergent meanings to the words we employ. “

Some church-goers in Canada switched to a different Catholic church after officials set aside “perfume” and “non-perfume” sections for Masses.
[Full Story]

Not exactly the odor of sanctity but I guess it makes scents.

Interesting story about the Einsiedeln Monastery in Switzerland sponsored a pilgrimage. The article is titled “Roman Catholic Church lures back flock”, nice unbiased headline if you ignore “lures”. It also goes on to mention people worshipping the “Black Modonna”, but I guess you can’t expect theological precision in newspaper articles.

I was raised as a Catholic and that is something I feel inside and I can’t change it,” said Verena Huber, who is uneasy at being called a pilgrim.

“Even when I declared myself an atheist, I was still comfortable when I entered a Catholic church. It was probably because I was brought up as a Catholic, I don’t know.”

Huber formally left the Church 20 years ago as a teenager. When she was six years of age, she lost a sister, and her father died when she was 12. These events made her lose her faith.

Now with three children of her own, she is looking for a way back to God and the Church, since she wants her offspring “to be at home in a religion”.

The unique pilgrimage at Einsiedeln gave her that chance.

At loggerheads

Titled “At loggerheads with the Church”, the event was the brainchild of the Einsiedeln abbot, Martin Werlen.

Werlen said he was inspired by the biblical story of the shepherd who leaves his 99 sheep to search for the one that is lost.

“There are many people who are struggling with the Church,” explained Werlen. “They sometimes go to church but don’t approach us with their problems. This pilgrimage is our invitation to them, so we can address their needs.”

Pilgrims have journeyed to Einsiedeln for centuries to worship before a wooden statue, the “Black Madonna” (see related story).

This three-day pilgrimage was of a very different nature.

It included a series of talks by prominent members of the Swiss Roman Catholic clergy, musical performances by guest choirs from abroad, guided hikes in the rolling hills around the monastery and wine tastings.

…When the discussions came to an end on Saturday, Huber said she was very impressed with what she described as a “wonderful experience” and that it represented for her a big step toward rejoining the church.

Still not entirely convinced by the Roman Catholic Church structure, she said “it cannot be changed from the outside. You have to go inside”.

Hopefully this effort to bring back lost sheep can help to get people to go from “wonderful experience” to intellectual belief in the truth of the Catholic faith. Of course as Fr. Pacwa says “That is dependent on upper management (God).” It is interesting to note that some people see “Church structure” as more important than whether the Church is true. Multi-syllable words like Modernism, Relativism don’t cause most people to flinch – but mention hierarchy and they will run screaming from the room.

We are sorry, but a temporary problem is preventing
your request from being completed.

The system administration team for Blog*Spot has been notified.

Error: 500

Since all of Bloggers blogs seem to be down right now, good thing there are some blogs on other systems still accessible. Yesterday Blogger blogs were giving you the random blog or just showing a picture instead. I think that they should rename their service to Bloggrrrrrrrr since grrrrrr is is the sound I seem to make trying to access them.